|
Post by sue75 on Nov 10, 2010 12:33:25 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2014 13:11:48 GMT -5
It seems everyone had a theory on the kidnapping of Charlie. Suspects were no exception! Here is Red Johnson's theory for how the kidnapping was done.
The kidnappers surveiled the Hopewell house for weeks noting the actions of the people as they went about their activities paying attention to when and where. They also learned the routine of putting Charlie to bed and when he would be checked on. Because there were no shades or curtains to be drawn on the windows it would be easy to study the family's movements at night. There were trees and bushes on the property allowing for such surveilence to be done in secret.
The ladder which was found was a blind or false clue. The kidnapper opened the front door softly, slipped up the stairs, took the baby from his crib and then retraced his steps down the stairs and went quietly out the front door.
Red developed this theory based on a couple of things:
1) Having heard that some of the investigators believed that the marks left by the ladder in the ground were too shallow, this showed that it (ladder) hadn't supported the weight of a man.
2) The layout of the interior of the Hopewell house. Red and Betty had been all over the place in that house. Based on that familiarity he surmised it happening through a front door entry and exit. His support for this is drawn on the fact that the stairway is to the left shortly after entering the house. The nursery is only a few steps away from the head of the stairway. Since the Lindberghs were in the rear of the house and the servants were in the servants quarters downstairs and the night being a windy one, the baby could have been taken away without the use of the ladder.
An interesting theory but is it a probable one?
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Aug 14, 2014 17:42:13 GMT -5
Amy, how soon after the crime did Red offer his theory.
Since the ladder was broken, they may have attempted to use it and then changed their mind. I never thought it was just a prop, but I also think that if it was used, the baby was handed off through the window to the kidnappers, I don't think the kidnapper ever climbed through the window.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2014 20:12:23 GMT -5
Amy, how soon after the crime did Red offer his theory. Since the ladder was broken, they may have attempted to use it and then changed their mind. I never thought it was just a prop, but I also think that if it was used, the baby was handed off through the window to the kidnappers, I don't think the kidnapper ever climbed through the window. I took Johnson's theory from Chapter 4 of the newspaper series that appeared from April 19 through May 2, 1932. I believe that Red Johnson started writing this series once he was transferred to Ellis Island on April 11, 1932 I think that he was formulating his theory during the times he was being held and questioned by authorities. Then once on Ellis Island he started to write everything out. His intention when sharing his theory was to show that inside help was not needed to accomplish the kidnapping. He was looking for his own vindication and Betty's in the eye of the public. My feeling is that knowing exactly how to access an interior staircase after entering the foyer and knowing that it put you where the nursery was located requires a knowledge of the interior of the house that you can't get from looking in the windows from bushes and trees. You need this information from someone who is familiar with the interior of the house. Someone just like Red Johnson. I suppose that it is possible that the ladder might have broke when they attempted to use it and had to go to plan B (front door) but I am not comfortable with that idea. I have never considered the ladder a prop either. My current position is that there was a handout of Charlie from the window to a person on that ladder just as you say.
|
|
|
Post by stella7 on Aug 14, 2014 21:17:15 GMT -5
I agree, if someone came through the front door to kidnap Charlie it was someone who knew interior of the house, not someone who was casing it from the outside. He almost incriminates himself with his statement.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Aug 16, 2014 8:25:20 GMT -5
An interesting theory but is it a probable one? I think, more then anything, it ruins the idea that it was not possible due to the fact those who were in the house seem to think it could have been done. It certainly appears to add yet another element of risk but what else is new?
|
|